From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,229ea0001655d6a2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Generic Package References: <1177539306.952515.222940@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <1177601484.444701.171560@r35g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <9eejm6rqip.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <19qllkvm6ut42$.1iqo74vjgmsrv$.dlg@40tude.net> <1177801611.10171.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1woad6hn9idy2$.6otnwphc1o0h$.dlg@40tude.net> <1177929029.6111.34.camel@localhost> <1177944533.13970.17.camel@localhost> <2aq08qbvw0ym$.1rquampzo7o53.dlg@40tude.net> <1ieq3io2d6nnq$.13818v3y35gnr.dlg@40tude.net> <1178010142.6695.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178026941.16837.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1ozvzzh59ebq8$.yeh9do8s3hig$.dlg@40tude.net> <1178055690.27673.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 10:07:18 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:BPiyPINpFDO4FVTA0gGZ2hlDveA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.252.103 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1178092748 88.72.252.103 (2 May 2007 09:59:08 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!newsfeed0.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!news.unit0.net!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15454 Date: 2007-05-02T10:07:18+02:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus writes: > On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 19:16 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> Apart from obvious uselessness of contracts referencing to the memory >> layout, > > I didn't say that. > >> the above is self-contradictory. Memory layout defines an order. It >> also is a part of the contract. > > Memory is not abstract, addresses aren't abstract, but what I > have described as a formal model is abstract. > >> Hence the interface is ordered. > > The abstraction of the implementation implies the existence > of a possible internal private ordering. Not even that. Regards -- Markus